This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gordon, L. Articles by Eakin, E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gordon, L. Articles by Eakin, E. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

A review of the cost-effectiveness of face-to-face behavioural interventions for smoking, physical activity, diet and alcohol

Queensland Institute of Medical Research, PO Royal Brisbane Hospital, Brisbane, Q4029, Australia, Louisa.Gordon{at}qimr.edu.au, Viertel Centre for Research in Cancer Control, The Cancer Council Queensland, PO Box 201, Spring Hill, Brisbane, Q4004, Australia

N. Graves

Institute of Biomedical and Health Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Cnr Blamey St & Musk Ave, Kelvin Grove, Brisbane, Q4059, Australia

A. Hawkes

Viertel Centre for Research in Cancer Control, The Cancer Council Queensland, PO Box 201, Spring Hill, Brisbane, Q4004, Australia

E. Eakin

School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Herston Rd, Herston, Brisbane, Q4006, Australia

Objective: To assess the evidence for the cost-effectiveness of health behaviour interventions that address the major behavioural risk factors for chronic disease, including smoking, physical inactivity, poor diet, and alcohol misuse.

Methods: Medical and economic databases were searched for relevant economic evaluations. Studies were critically appraised using a published 35-point checklist, and the results are described using a narrative approach, noting methodological limitations. The review included 64 studies from 1995—2005, including 17 reports on multiple behaviour interventions.

Results: There was considerable variation among the studies by target populations, intervention components, primary outcomes, and economic methods, but the reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were consistently low (e.g. <14,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained for smoking-cessation programmes in 2006 Euros) as compared to certain preventive pharmaceutical and invasive interventions. Interventions targeting high-risk-population subgroups were relatively better value for money as compared to those targeting general populations.

Discussion: In general, the results of this review demonstrate favourable cost-effectiveness for smoking interventions, physical activity interventions and multiple behaviour interventions in high-risk groups. Although alcohol and dietary interventions appeared to be economically favourable, it is difficult to draw conclusions because of the variety in study outcomes. However, methodological limitations weaken the generalizability of findings, and suggest that the results of any given study should be considered carefully when being used to inform resource allocation.

Key Words: Alcohol intake • Cost-effectiveness • Diet • Physical activity • Smoking cessation

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?